This article is part of WikiProject Blogging, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.

I think the title for this article might be better as "Powerline (blog)" rather than "PowerlineBlog". The only place I see the word blog run together with powerline is in the URL www.powerlineblog.com. Elsewhere the blog is referred to as Powerline. Any other thoughts out there? Dfarmer 15:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After looking some more, it is written "Power Line" on the blog itself so I would propose the "Power Line (blog)" as the title of this article. Dfarmer 20:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the page, having heard no objections. Dfarmer 02:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Actually, the article still has its original title. CWC(talk) 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

Prior version focused on only 2 issues of policy disagreement with Bush Administration, where encyclopedia should list all major agreement and disagreement. H. Meirs Esq. not a policy position. More encyclopedic now. Getterstraight 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)getterstraightGetterstraight 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone cleaned this up and made it much higher quality and less partisan. Good job. However they also removed accurate information on the overall tone and content trend of this blog, reducing the accuracy of the article. To say the blog "generally" supports the Bush Administration is inaccurate; quantifying their supportive vs critical posts - even including the H. Meirs and Immigration debate periods - shows well over 9 to 1 are supportive. Furthermore, pro-Adminstration and/or anti - Bush critics content make up over half the posts since 2002. Also, they routinely attack the character of their political opponents - an important aspect of the blog.

Power Line was criticized for describing former US President Jimmy Carter as being "on the other side" which was interpreted to mean 'sympathetic to terrorists'. Hinderaker later clarified his criticisms but went on to say Carter was "aligning himself with America's enemies" and had "never met an anti-American dictator he did not like." He called Carter "a disgrace", and later a "nut".

I've left out the bits shown in green, partly because my version is already too long.

Does anyone have a citation for the "interpreted to mean 'sympathetic to terrorists'" bit? If so, we probably should add it back.

Scott Johnson called Carter a nut in the headline of this post. Fairness requires putting the insult into context, but that post is hard to summarize. Have the Powerliners called Carter a nut in other posts?

That sentence and the headline mentioned above would be well within the bounds of normal political discourse here in Australia. I know we're less polite than Americans, but I didn't think the difference was that great.

Well, it is an American site, frequently referenced and described in this article as influential. Political politeness in Australia is not germaine.Getterstraight 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, I've moved the newly-added sentence here for discussion:

The site had labelled Carter as "a nut" and referred to him as "Mr Peanut" [1][2]

Given that we say they wrote that Carter was "on the other side", does them calling him a nut have much significance?

Yes it is significant indicator that a site has frequently attacked a former and still living president, and does so in this fashion - especially one held in regard as reputable and erudite. It is a significant indicator of the views and expressive tone. As stated already it is a repeat accusation.Getterstraight 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, should that be "had labelled" or "has labelled"? Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "And Mirengoff added" section as it belabors the point, that already comprises a significant part of the article. Getterstraight 06:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the text about the Schiavo memo. It now links to our articles on Brian Darling, Mel Martinez and (gasp!) Schiavo memo. Also, it now uses quote from Powerline itself, rather than tendentious "summaries".

I've retained the final sentence:

Critics accuse Power Line of using innuendo and guilt by association on this and other occasions.

but put a "citation needed" tag on it. There ought to be plenty of URLs for that statement! But I'm going to bed, so someone else can look for them.

I've removed the bit about Powerline calling George W. Bush "the Churchill of our times", because they haven't, at least not on the blog. (I used the blog's search facility to find all occurrences of "of our times". I used Google to double-check. The phrase "Churchill of our times" never appeared.)

I've also asked for a citation for them calling Bush 44 a "genius", in case the word comes from a sentence like "The genius of the Bush campaign ..."[3].

Hinderaker wrote a lengthy post abput Bush being an unrecognized genius, another about his genius on the environment, and has posted other glowing posts about incredible insight. Youmust not have looked far. Getterstraight 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this post about the environment in which JH calls Bush a "man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius" (emphasis added) then admits he was being deliberately hyperbolic. There are 3 posts containing the words "incredible" and "insight", but none mention Bush. There are lots of posts containing the word "genius", mostly attached to Karl Rove and prefixed by "evil". Please supply links. Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the "Schiavo Memo" section, we say that "Critics accuse Power Line of using innuendo and guilt by association on this and other occasions." I'm sure this is true, but we should try to find links for such accusations.

I tried googling for +(powerline OR "power line") +"guilt by association" -site:powerlineblog.com but found nothing in the first 120 hits. (Most of the hits are righty blogs accusing Democrats of guilt by association.) Can someone with more patience or better "google-fu" help out?

Some editor(s) keeps adding statements that are extremely obvious, do not increase accuracy, make run-on sentences and difficult reading. Examples: the three lawyers "sometimes disagree with each other" With over 5000 posts and as grown men, why even say it? Getterstraight 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Power Line hallmark is vigorous criticism of Democrats and liberals (and sometimes [[Republican Party Republicans as well[4])

I'm putting it back because (aside of the parentheses mismatch and the irrelevant link) it tells readers something important about the Powerliners: they are conservatives first and Republicans second. (Another way to make the same point is that they wanted Stephen Laffey to beat Lincoln Chafee in the recent primary[5].) For us to come out and say that directly would be WP:OR; the "and sometimes Republicans" bit is quite encyclopedic and demonstrates the point instead of stating it ("show, don't tell"). Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have now completely revealed yourself CWC, . You "put it back" for a weak objective reason. In a blog that is VERY STRONGLY THEMATIC you have found an incident (or have you found two?) outside the theme. In contrast I offer statistical analysis and request that the article define that very strong theme You change it for the reason you described above - a reason weak on its face. Again, in a blog with a highly consistent point of view, what relevance is the occassional, no - very occasional, relief from the theme? Is the fact that Genghis Khan once left a an Afghan Prince's home intact worth 8 or 9% of the recounting of his significance in history. No. What compels you to clutter the article with this trivia - have you realized their theme i sstronger than you like and now you want to soften the immage they have chosen on their own? The blog is statistically very very very supportive (nearly 3log) of the BA and very very very negative in its treatment of those not supportive of the BA (4+log). If you disagree - offer some evidence. All I ask is that is describes as what is objectively obvious.

The fact that Power Line, like most political blogs, is driven more by ideology than by party loyalty is not at all trivial. It's an interesting and important aspect of the impact of Internet technology on politics. It's the same phenomenon saw Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman in the primary.

Does "3log" mean 3 orders of magnitude? If so, 24.163.196.252 is claiming that at most 5 Powerline posts criticised Republicans, an incredible assertion.

Adding unsourced references to "neoconservatives" does not give one confidence in the sincerity of your concerns. - Crockspot 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article admits to PL being Neoconservative - and did so long before I got here. "Power Line's authors typically support President George W. Bush's administration and the "Neoconservative" agenda, especially the Iraq war and the War on Terrorism." - FaAfA(yap) 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, FaAFA, try a little harder, please? "The article admits ..."!? Oh, dear.
That they "typically support [snip] the 'Neoconservative' agenda" is quite different from saying they are neo-conservatives.
The real problem, of course, is that "neoconservative" is now a meaningless word.[6] (Why, some people even lump neocons in with WAR and the Klan by seriously claiming they're far right ... ;-] )

I'm watching PBS' News Wars. They just had a segment on the Killian Documents, and a short interview with Scott Johnson of Power Line, which might be transcribed in the link provided. It was the only blog mentioned in connection with the Killian docs - and Johnson didn't share any credit. Nothing like "Those guys at Little Green Footballs and Free Republic helped too". Good feather in the cap for Power Line though. Peace. - FaAfA(yap) 05:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Update In the extended online interview he does mention Free Republic. - FaAfA(yap) 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, FaAFA, for mentioning those interviews. Here are direct links to the interviews with Hinderaker and Johnson. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"the most influential blog, not just in America, but because it was so in America, also on the globe" - is there any data how PL clocks in in global readership? Because the statement seems fairly outrageous; "virtually unknown and moves preciously little water outside the US" might actually be closer to the truth... so egregious a claim certainly deserves a reality check. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

in addition to Dysmorodrepans's salient point above, it is obvious POV marketing that motivates the inclusion of "fellow blogger" Hu Hewitt's adulation as a description of the blog. It is not close to impartial and it is an inappropriate entry for an encyclopedia. Hewitt is EXTREMELY closely aligned with the Powerline principles: they refer to themselves frequently and admiringly, and host each other on radio shows, etc etc as well. The quote is not valid in the context of objectivity - unlike the Time magazine notation, Hewitt is a Fellow Traveler of POWERLINE. It should be removed.

I just went to make a small edit to the article but ended up making lots of changes. The hardest thing I did was update the references, switching to <ref>{{{cite web |...}}</ref>. The problem is that every link of the form http://powerlineblog.com/archives/nnnnnn.php is broken, including those in old posts. This annoys me very much. Very, very much.

Having got that off my chest, here are the remaining broken links I haven't fixed yet:

The best way to find the current URLs for these posts seems to be to use the blog's search facility. In a closely related development, those are the refs with no quotes to search for. I've already spent too much time on this article, and would greatly appreciate help with fixing or replacing these links. Please. CWC 11:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just replaced #3 with a link to a recent post. Two to go. CWC 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had a few edits lately removing/reinstating Little Green Footballs from the See also section, so I took a look and noticed that we mention LGF in the "Rathergate" section, but the style guidelines for "See also" sections suggest not listing articles mentioned in the main text. I felt that this article should mention that a Freeper got the ball rolling, so I've edited that into the article and removed LGF and FR from the "See also" list. (I think it is generally better to keep "See also" sections short.)

But what about the remaining items? Here they are, with my guesses as to why they're listed:

Because of where the authors of this blog are based (Wisconsin and the surrounding states,) this blog gained further notice during the Wisconsin insanity surrounding a bill that limited collective bargaining of public employee unions in the state. PokeHomsar (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede seemed to want to discuss Paul Mirengoff's exit and return to the blog. I wanted to add information on the event which apparently led up to his exit, a post about the Tucson ceremony following the "Gabrielle Giffords" shootings. I really don't think Mirengoff's exit and return deserve such prominent placement in the lede paragraph, but seeing as that's where they were, that's where I added the explanation. IMO the paragraph should be "below the fold." Frank Lynch (talk)

Yes, Paul Mirengoff is back: From today:: "NOVEMBER 24, 2014 — PAUL MIRENGOFF, IRAN’S WIN-WIN: "The deadline for reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear program expires today without the parties having reached a negotiated agreement. The negotiating period will be extended until July 1 of next year. This development is being reported as “no deal, but there actually is a deal of sorts here. According to the British foreign secretary, Iran will receive about $700 million per month in frozen assets. In exchange, …" -- FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm proposing that all three of the authors of the blog be merged into this one article. It doesn't appear they're noteworthy on their own, their notability is basically reliant on the blog. Input is welcomed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This statement in the lede paragraph needs some kind of context. Some measure of its rank in terms of other political blogs, on both sides of the political spectrum.Frank Lynch (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)